How to Keep the Constitution

It requires transparency and checks, not a national-security state.

When I entered Congress, I swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution, and I have followed through on that promise. The political elites of both parties don’t like what I’m doing. They have a vision of government that is very different from the vision laid out in the Constitution. As the elites see it, the American people are their subjects, and a benevolent privileged few—standing above the law—must watch over the rest of society.

History and logic show us that no matter how “good” the leaders are, unrestrained government invites corruption and cronyism. On the whole, government power always benefits the wealthy and well-connected at the expense of others. Some of the reasons are just common sense. It costs a lot of money to lobby Washington. Even the best-intentioned government official cannot sort out what’s right when he spends most of his time hobnobbing with one percent of society.

Wherever government power has proliferated, societies have become poorer, crueler, and less productive. The extreme examples are found in Communist states, but we need not look that far. Europe is wracked by economic chaos and civil strife because decades of big government bred dependence, resentment, and division among its peoples. In my own state of Michigan, bankrupt Detroit is a victim of the corruption and failed incentives that accompany too much government.

Those who favor more government power face an uncomfortable truth: the Constitution is a libertarian document, and we in government are sworn to uphold it. Under the Constitution, the federal government’s sole purpose is to protect our liberty, not provide us things. The government protects liberty by defending the nation from foreign attack, maintaining open trade among the states and foreign nations, and pursuing a few other limited functions.

This limited role for the federal government takes courage to embrace. It is easier to keep providing things—using other people’s money and incurring large debts. But that is not what the Constitution allows, and it is not what works. Providing things, where necessary, is for local governments, religious institutions, charities, families, and friends.

Living as subjects of King George and fighting a revolutionary war made our Founders wise beyond their time. The Founders preserved local control for almost everything because it would allow competition among the states, because the people would be closer to their elected officials and could more easily toss them out, and because in the worst case scenario a person could leave his city or state in search of better government, but could not easily leave his country.

For those who do not agree with this system, there is a method to amend the Constitution. It is not an easy method because the Constitution exists to prevent power consolidation and restrain extremism at the federal level. And that, too, is an uncomfortable fact for Washington politicians who enjoy the privileges of power and consider themselves judge and jury over what is best for all Americans.

The Founders also understood that the people’s God-given rights are paramount, and that a dangerous world does not make those rights less important, but rather more important, because government officials are always tempted to use dangerous times as a justification for spying on us and violating our freedoms. And, indeed, we see that happening today, even as many of my colleagues and I, backed by millions of patriotic Americans, are fighting to stop it.

In the Internet era, there is more hope for freedom than ever before. While some in government see the Internet as a way to monitor the people and illegally sidestep the Fourth Amendment, I use the Internet to keep government accountable to the people, as the Constitution demands.

Since entering Congress in 2011, I have used Facebook to explain every vote I take on the House floor—more than 2,000—and I have never missed a vote. It is a small gesture that has had amazing consequences, opening up government to greater scrutiny and forcing my colleagues to think twice before casting a vote that ignores the basic principles of the Constitution.

Fortunately, I am not alone in my efforts to preserve our constitutional republic. In both the House and Senate, a new generation of representatives—some younger, some older—are taking up the cause of liberty. It is a cause without partisan labels. It is the constitutional foundation on which we Americans have built the most free and prosperous nation in history.

Nixon was impeached for less law breaking than our current President. With the ‘quantitive easing’ of printing more and the Obamacare law is going to bring citizens to despair before his term. Their delight for tyranny in a new global world order. I don’t see how we can stop them with a minority who know. God, please hear our heart felt prayers of repentance.

This is a fine collection of platitudes, but I must have missed the part where you cited the parts of the constitution being violated. What are they?

You say that the Constitution’s sole purpose is to protect liberty, not provide us things. There are two problems with this statement: (1) Protect our liberty from whom? The government? Corporations? Each other? (2) What about the text of the constitution (Art. I, Sec. 8) which enables the federal government to spend for the common welfare, as well as the common defense. Please look up U.S. v. Butler.

See – I want to agree with Amash on this issue. But then early on he throws in a line like “As the elites see it, the American people are their subjects, and a benevolent privileged few—standing above the law—must watch over the rest of society.” and he makes me feel like he’s just another demagogue.

Not once in the article does Amash use the term “fear”, or really acknowledge the power that fear has in shaping our security state. We are where we are in no small part because after 9/11, the voices of those pushing back against the security state were marginalized, and Congressmen rushed to throw money at better and more robust means of sifting through all the data that could possibly be used to prevent another terrorist attack. When the NY Times publicized President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, they were attacked from the right for treasonous partisanship … even though the paper withheld that information from the public until after the 2004 elections.

If someone wants to be serious about limiting the security state – you don’t start by attacking the size of government. You start by pledging that you and your party will not make political hay over a successful terrorist attack in the future, and by calling on the opposition party to do the same. Once both parties are not afraid of a successful terrorist attack resulting in crushing defeats at the ballot box in future elections, we can have a dialogue about what data collection methods we should allow government to have, and which we should not.

In short – Amash’s attack on the security state seems more like he’s looking for a wedge to advance his primary issue, which is the same old “Big Government is Bad” charge. Unfortunately, while that pitch might help build momentum for gutting a federal program or two, with respect to combatting the overreach of the security state it will have no long term resonance whatsoever, particularly in stopping the next wave of excesses that would result from a next 9/11.

Mr. Amash says “federal government’s sole purpose is to protect our liberty”. How about “life” and the “pursuit of happiness”? What happened to them? I find it interesting that constutional hawks always leave these purposes out of the discussion while they only focus on negative liberty.

The constitution a libertarian document with no prevention of slavery? And look at all the Congressional powers enumerated in Art 1 S8. Sorry – it makes for a good soundbite or readbite, but it’s flatly untrue.

Further, his diagnosis for what ails Europe makes the common, though inexcusable, error, of assuming that there’s a single country “Europe”. Even within the EU there are very different ways of doing things and what may be valid criticism of Greece or Spain is utterly absurd for Germany or Switzerland,

That’s correct as a reference to the Articles of Confederation. The trouble is it didn’t work so well and left us weak and disjointed as a country. The Constitution is a document created to empower a far stronger Federal role to unite the nascent nation and create a modern government and nation.

What the FFs really created was a brilliantly constructed document based on what they considered enlightened values (all originating in the Old World by the way) that was purposefully vague and flexible- a document for the ages.

These were not lazy meant- they could have written a 5,000 word document that would leave no room for interpretation. Madison himself, the Father of the Constitution, stated that in the end when looking for clarification the ultimate source should not be the exact words or the FFs individual thoughts and writings on the matter, but lies with the people themselves.

Then will you initiate impeachment proceedings against Justice John Roberts? He usurped legislative authority by re-writing ObamaCare, and left us with taxation without representation. Impeachment is the Constitutionally correct action to take.

As a former member of your district (but still a Michigander) and a liberal, I probably don’t agree with many of your views, and didn’t vote for you. However, I definitely agree that government surveillance has gone too far, and I appreciate your efforts in fighting it.

Is Detroit’s government really all that big? Or is it that government is the only employer not allowed to move out of town? How small are the governments of the satellite cities that have replaced Detroit?

Stephen Gould, the Constitution does render slavery illegal. Read the Fifth Amendment. You are confusing the document with the actions of people. This is not the first time that the actions of both citizens and the elected officials charged with upholding the Constitution have defied the law. Consider Barack Obama selectively enforcing federal law. Consider John Roberts using the Supreme Court as a mechanism to rewrite the Affordable Care Act. Remember, the job of SCOTUS is to interpret law not to rewrite it. Furthermore, John Roberts wrongfully found legality in a law that was supposed to have originated in the House of Representatives. And then there are the abuse of the war powers by both Barack Obama and the presidents who preceded them.

Stephen, might I recommend that you acquaint yourself with a text on U.S. History.

The constitution a libertarian document with no prevention of slavery?

——————————–

Had the Constitution included any prohibition of slavery, it would never have been ratified. The question was a big part of what broke the country apart three-quarters of a century later; in 1789, it would have killed the country before it was born.

Juris Depravis, not sure if you are aware of this but the method by which the Affordable Care Act became law violates the Constitution. If you remember, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate was legal under Congress’ power to tax. Unfortunately Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution states that “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….” ACA did not originate in the House. Furthermore, the ruling is a violation of the Constitution because the Supreme Court exercised a power it did not have, writing law.

Stephen, the Constitution isn’t like a long math problem where if you mess one thing up it makes the entire thing wrong.
Our founding fathers had a warped sense when it came to slavery; no one is denying that. But the limited government part they got right. Just because they were wrong on slavery doesn’t void the entire document.

“Living as subjects of King George and fighting a revolutionary war made our Founders wise beyond their time. The Founders preserved local control for almost everything because it would allow competition among the states, because the people would be closer to their elected officials and could more easily toss them out, and because in the worst case scenario a person could leave his city or state in search of better government, but could not easily leave his country.”

While I certainly love, hate and support the US. Theses comments live one a tad bit perplexed. They wisdom of the founders were not wiser than their times. They were locked into them. They could not escape the classist and false realities about the nature of humanity.

And the evidence is clear that they dare not challenge the assumptions about human existence — even when they new they should have done so.

I agree with Rep. Amish 100%. I wonder who wrote the headline, because other than the subheadline “It requires transparency and checks, not a national-security state” there is no method laid out on “How to Keep the Constitution.”

I believe the only way to “keep the constitution” is to vote in more representatives like Amish, Paul and Massey. If we vote for more goodies from government, the country will collapse as many democracies have once the public learns they can vote themselves money from the treasury.

“History and logic show us that no matter how “good” the leaders are… ”

And you would be any different? Force your ideals of “liberty” on an entire nation? That’s no better than the democrats and republicans, both of which think they are defending the constitution. Even modern liberalism has it’s basis in the founders words.
Why not submit yourself to the free market? Take donations to work for the privatisation of something specific, like the Post Office. It is a proven fact that libertarians are incapable of changing a whole country, plus it would be immoral to do so. Prove you can get rid of 1 monopoly and move your way up. This pipe dream of going straight to the top to force your political system on others is dangerous and misguided.

“As the elites see it, the American people are their subjects, and a benevolent privileged few—standing above the law—must watch over the rest of society.”

As I see it, this clearly applies to more than our Government. These elites include our pundits, our lobbyists both native and foreign, and our security/defense industries. In fact I assume that is what was meant. If not, this otherwise very well written article would resemble a hobby horse.

Clearly Amash hasn’t read the “World Happines Report 2012,” or he wouldn’t be dissing Europe about its “dependencies.” Four Scandinavian countries, with their extensive social safety nets came out on top. They’re also more financially secure than the US has been since the 1950s. He’d do much better if he focused his efforts exclusively on defunding the NSA (along with several other agencies sucking on the overkill military budget).

The mission statement of the Constitution is its Preamble. That mission statement clearly divides sovereignty. Federal to “provide” defense of liberty for ourselves and our posterity is mandated. Federal limitation to only “promote” welfare, a prohibition from providing welfare.

Madison explained the division of sovereignty in Federalist #45:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”

Federalist #79:
“In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’s SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.”

Controlling the will of the people by controlling their subsistence is hostile to liberty and the mission of the Federal government.

Rep. Amash is proving to his constituents that he is genuinely their voice in Congress. Integrity and steadfastness are key qualities that will help the public
regain confidence in leadership. He is a person who embodies good politics.

Bravo Representative Amash! You are the most consistent and articulate conservative in what I like to think of as the “Austrian-Traditionalist” mode in American public life today. Where do I order my Amash in 2106 buttons?

I am generally (though perhaps not entirely) sympathetic to Rep. Amash’s views; I am also happy to see him contributing to TAC, and wish him well. But, like so many pundits and politicians, he treats the Constitution anachronistically, and reads his own views back into the views of its writers.

First, the Constitution is not a “libertarian document,” unless you equate “libertarian” with belief in limited government, in which case you are redefining the term in a way that makes it so broadly applicable as to be almost meaningless. The “Founders” were not libertarians.

As some others here have noted, the Constitution neither states nor implies that the federal government’s “sole purpose” is to protect liberty. Indeed, it makes it quite clear that it isn’t, listing liberty as one of several goods.

The Constitution does not state nor imply a mandate for the federal government to “maintain open trade” with “foreign nations.” Its drafters would have been shocked by such a notion; in fact, as soon as it was adopted, battles over trade policy broke out, including among the Constitution’s key backers. Once again, Mr. Amash is falsely attributing his own preferences to the “Founders.”

To my knowledge,no federalist or anti-federalist raised the issue of “competition between the states” as a reason for federalism. (If I am wrong here, someone please correct me, with a cite.) Yet again, Mr. Amash is taking contemporary arguments for federalism and attributing them to people who did not consider them.

The American “Founders” were wise, but not “wise beyond their time.” I would so much have preferred to see Mr. Amash offer his arguments from his own mouth, instead of putting them in the mouths of others.

The Constitution,for all its flaws,is the best that we can have at this moment in time. It is not that the government,Congress,the President and the Judiciary are at fault in either ignoring the Constitution(especially the Bill Of Rights)or in twisting the Constitutions meaning. Who is at fault is a voting majority of the American people who have either ignored their role in guarding against the abuses of the state or have voted away their individual rights in exchange for security. The attitude and actions of the majority of voting Americans is for more. The politicians only give to the voting majority what that voting majority desires. If that desire is to live at the expense of their fellow citizens then so be it. The majority of Americans get the government they want and have voted for. Constitution or no Constitution.

“The evils suffered and feared from weakness in Government, and licentiousness in the people, have turned the attention more towards the means of strengthening the former than of narrowing its extent in the minds of the latter.” — James Madison in letter to Thomas Jefferson, 4 Feb. 1790, referring to the new congress